SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Kirubakaran, V.M. Velumani, JJ.
Radhakrishnan – Petitioner
Versus
The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
H.C.P.No. 964 of 2020
Decided On : 13-07-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Mohamed Saifulla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The need for a time limit for the disposal of the representation for ordinary leave to mitigate the problems of the prisoners and their families.

Headnote:

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Ordinary Leave - Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 - Rule 19, Rule 20, Rule 22, Rule 23, Rule 24

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a life convict, sought one month's ordinary leave to treat his wife's medical condition and to manage his daughters' educational expenses. The court granted ten days leave with escort considering the petitioner's previous leave, his wife's health, and the educational expenses of his children.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the government to make amendments in the Rules to indicate a two weeks' time limit for the disposal of the representation for ordinary leave. It held that failure to adhere to the time limit would amount to Contempt of Court and directed the authorities to bear the expenses incurred by the parties for approaching the Court for not disposing the representation for ordinary leave.

Issues: Grant of ordinary leave, delay in disposal of representation for ordinary leave, and adherence to time limits for disposal of the representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a time limit for the disposal of the representation for ordinary leave to mitigate the problems of the prisoners and their families. It held that failure to adhere to the time limit would amount to Contempt of Court and directed the authorities to bear the expenses incurred by the parties for approaching the Court for not disposing the representation for ordinary leave.

Final Decision: The court granted ten days leave with escort to the petitioner and directed the government to make amendments in the Rules to indicate a two weeks' time limit for the disposal of the representation for ordinary leave. It held that failure to adhere to the time limit would amount to Contempt of Court and directed the authorities to bear the expenses incurred by the parties for approaching the Court for not disposing the representation for ordinary leave.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to grant ordinary leave for a period of one month without escort to the petitioner namely, D. Radhakrishnan, S/o. Duraisamy, Life Convict Prisoner (C.T. No.-0631) aged 45 years, confined at Central Prison, Salem for the purpose of making the arrangements of medical treatment of his wife and to partition and sell the ancestral property for manage the daughters study expenses before this Hon’ble Court and further directing the respondents to consider the detenu release immediately under the ordinary leave and for consequential orders.)

The matter was heard through video-conferencing.

2. The petitioner is a life convict who seeks one month’s ordinary leave to treat his wife, who is suffering from incisional hernia and also to make arrangements to meet the educational expenses of his daughters.

3. Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Saifullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Though Ms. M. Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose granting of leave to the petitioner on the ground that there are two cases pending against him and they are in trial stage, taking into consideration that the petitioner had already been granted leave in 2019, the health condition of his wife and also that he has to make arrangements for the educational expenses of his children, this Court is inclined to grant ten days leave to the petitioner commencing from 15.07.2020 till 24.07.2020 with escort.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner namely, D. Radhakrishnan, S/o. Duraisamy, Life Convict Prisoner (C.T. No.-0631) aged 45 years, confined at Central Prison, Salem shall be released on 15.07.2020 at 10 a.m. with escort and he shall surrender before the Prison Authorities on 24.07.2020 at 5.00 p.m. It is made clear that no charges should be collected from the convict.

6. The Jail Authorities during the said period shall provide proper escort to the convict in order to ensure his safety and security. They shall impose suitable conditions to that effect and the convict should also abide by the conditions imposed by the authorities concerned.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the police officials who are accompanying the convicts are taking money in the name of charges. If it is happening, then it is illegal and it would amount to bribe. It is made clear that if any such incident is brought to the notice of this Court, then not only departmental proceedings would be taken against the concerned officials but also action under Prevention of Corruption Act would be taken. The convicts are already languishing in jail and do not have any source of livelihood and their families are already suffering. In spite of the same, these people are fleecing the convicts who come out on parole without any sympathy. Therefore, the Inspector General of Prisons is directed to make it clear that no amount shall be demanded from the convicts when they come out on parole and the convicts shall also be informed about the same so that if any such incident happens, the same can be promptly report to the authorities.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the wife of the petitioner had given a representation seeking ordinary leave on 18.09.2019, so far the said representation has not been considered and disposed of by the Authorities. As per Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, the Government is the competent authority to issue order of release of prisoners on ordinary leave. The grounds for the grant of ordinary leave have been enumerated under Rule 20 of the said Rules, which is extracted as follows :

    20. Grounds for the grant of ordinary leave:

The grounds for the grant of ordinary leave to a prisoner shall be –

(i) to make arrangements for the livelihood of his family and for the settlemen

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top